Sen. Mike Duffy is hoping to extract a lofty sum from the Senate and the RCMP, arguing they unfairly subjected him to a witch hunt that resulted in gross Charter violations and salary loss that now demand some form of compensation.

But legal experts well-versed on civil lawsuits of this sort say it could be a tough slog for the P.E.I. Senator.

At the heart of Duffy’s $8-million lawsuit is a claim that the Red Chamber and the Mounties ran roughshod over his rights in their dogged pursuit of a scapegoat for public outrage over questionable expenses.

Duffy claims he was “threatened, cajoled, arm-twisted and rebuked” by former prime minister Stephen Harper’s office to publicly admit wrongdoing even though he maintained all expenses were above board.

The Conservative-controlled Senate was then the “government’s servant” and booted him from the upper house to serve a political agenda when things went awry. The RCMP, in turn, hastily assembled a criminal case that unfairly subjected Duffy to humiliation among other ills.

In his statement of claim, filed Thursday, Duffy said his Charter rights under section 7 (the right to life, liberty and the security of person), section 11(d) (the right to be presumed innocence) and section 12 (freedom from cruel and unusual punishment) were ignored throughout this scandal by both the Senate and the police.

“The system makes it really hard to allege a violation of the Charter based simply on a suspension from a position, loss of pay and the mere fact you were charged for a crime; it’s hard to argue that leads to a Charter violation when you’re ultimately acquitted and your job is reinstated,” Carissima Mathen, an associate professor of constitutional law at the University of Ottawa, said in an interview.

James Comey says it’s ‘not up to him’ to decide if Trump’s ‘disturbing behaviour’ was obstruction of justice

Former FBI Director James Comey said it was not up to him to determine whether Donald Trump behaviour was obstruction of justice.

April 21, 2017

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Mr Comey said during his testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but added that Mr Trump’s behaviour was “concerning…and disturbing”.

Mr Comey, fired on 9 May, detailed in a written statement ahead of his ongoing testimony that Mr Trump said to him during a one-on-one White House dinner: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

The former FBI Director said his “common sense” said that it made him feel as if Mr Trump was “looking for something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job” of FBI Director.

June 24, 2016

Mr Comey, a prosecutor himself, said that the determination of obstruction of justice should be left up to the Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, who was appointed as an independent counsel in the investigation into the alleged ties between Mr Trump’s campaign team and Russia and the country’s possible interference with the 2016 US election.

The former Director’s comment today, however, may mean that Mr Trump’s possible obstruction of justice or possible collusion with Russian officials is also under the purview of Mr Mueller’s investigation.

Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offence but is a tricky legal issue because it has to do with Mr Trump’s actions rather than his intent or how Mr Trump’s actions made Mr Comey feel. As a lawyer, Mr Comey is aware of this and likely why he is leaving that determination up to Mr Mueller. (Source: The Independent)

James Comey says it’s ‘not up to him’ to decide if Trump’s ‘disturbing behaviour’ was obstruction of justice

Former FBI Director James Comey said it was not up to him to determine whether Donald Trump behaviour was obstruction of justice.

May 11, 2017

“I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Mr Comey said during his testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but added that Mr Trump’s behaviour was “concerning…and disturbing”.

Mr Comey, fired on 9 May, detailed in a written statement ahead of his ongoing testimony that Mr Trump said to him during a one-on-one White House dinner: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

The former FBI Director said his “common sense” said that it made him feel as if Mr Trump was “looking for something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job” of FBI Director.

December 17, 2016

Mr Comey, a prosecutor himself, said that the determination of obstruction of justice should be left up to the Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, who was appointed as an independent counsel in the investigation into the alleged ties between Mr Trump’s campaign team and Russia and the country’s possible interference with the 2016 US election.

The former Director’s comment today, however, may mean that Mr Trump’s possible obstruction of justice or possible collusion with Russian officials is also under the purview of Mr Mueller’s investigation.

Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offence but is a tricky legal issue because it has to do with Mr Trump’s actions rather than his intent or how Mr Trump’s actions made Mr Comey feel. As a lawyer, Mr Comey is aware of this and likely why he is leaving that determination up to Mr Mueller. (Source: The Independent)

Don’t Let Politicians Rewrite National Anthems

Some members of the Senate are determined to stop Parliament from changing the words of the national anthem, with one senator deriding the late Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger’s proposed amendments to O Canada as “clunky, leaden and pedestrian.”

May 10, 2013

Bélanger, who passed away last summer after a battle with ALS, sought to make the anthem gender-neutral by removing the phrase “all thy sons command” and replacing it with “all of us command.”

The bill passed in the House of Commons largely along party lines, with all Liberal and NDP MPs voting in favour of the changes, while most Conservatives opposed. Some notable female Tory MPs, including Michelle Rempel and Lisa Raitt, backed Bélanger’s bill.

Nearly a year later, the bill is now in its last legislative phase — third reading in the Senate — awaiting a final vote. As per the Senate’s procedural policy, debate on the bill can be continually adjourned by critics, punting a vote on the matter to a later date. (Source: CBC News)

Meanwhile, after nearly three years of talks, the NHL announced Monday it will not participate in the 2018 Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, a decision that is turning out to be incredibly unpopular with many players.

June 7, 2008

“It’s crap. I don’t understand the decision,” said a clearly disgruntled Erik Karlsson to CBC Windsor.

The Swedish player and captain of the Ottawa Senators is among many high-profile players voicing discontent in the wake of the announcement.

One of the most outspoken against the decision has been another Swede — Henrik Lundqvist. The New York Rangers goaltender tweeted that “a huge opportunity to market the game at the biggest stage is wasted.”

Carey Price, who helped lead Team Canada to a gold medal at the Sochi Olympics in 2014, said it’s a particularly tough blow to the younger players.

“I feel like we’re short-changing some of the younger players that haven’t had that opportunity,” he said. “It’s tough to swallow for some of those kids, I’m sure. At a human level, this is a big worldwide event that the world takes part in and you know, we want to shine our light too.”

Marc Savard, a Canadian who is under contract with the New Jersey Devils, joked that tryouts for the team will be posted at local rinks.

Canada has long dominated the game, winning nine gold medals for men’s hockey since 1920 — including consecutive wins in 2010 and 2014.

This will mark the first time NHLers won’t participate in nearly 20 years. (Source: CBC)

Someone must be held accountable for spending accusations: Brazeau

Spending in the upper chamber still needs to be cleaned up, Sen. Patrick Brazeau said Thursday as he promised to push for more changes when he makes his triumphant return to the Senate in the fall.

Brazeau said someone has to be held accountable for the fact that he has spent the last three years of his life under what he describes as false allegations of misspending and wrongdoing.

Brazeau summoned the media to his Ottawa office Thursday and spoke out publicly at a news conference for the first time since his long, difficult legal saga began more than three years ago.

Brazeau has long insisted he did nothing wrong when he filed housing claims for a secondary home near Parliament Hill, noting he met the test the Senate now uses for verifying a primary residence.

Independent auditors from Deloitte couldn’t conclude he broke any rules because the rules themselves were so vague, he added. But the Senate rejected that finding and ordered Brazeau to repay about $49,000 in housing claims.

[slideshow_deploy id=’1787’]

Months later, in November 2013, Brazeau was suspended without pay in an emotional vote in the upper chamber. Some Conservative senators abstained, believing it unfair to treat Brazeau the same as fellow members Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy.

Brazeau said he wants the whole thing to be “water under the bridge,” but knows that may be impossible.

“What happened in the Senate with me in particular … was unjust and somebody needs to be held accountable,” he said.

“And I’m going to work darn hard to make sure that place gets cleaned up, because each time you hear senators saying, ‘Oh, well, we changed these rules and we changed those rules’ — well, they haven’t done enough and I’m going to start working on that right away.”

The rule changes, a key pressure point in the Senate, are at the heart of a dispute between one senator and the Senate committee that oversees spending. The committee has threatened to cut off Sen. John Wallace’s expense privileges if he doesn’t sign a declaration saying he is in compliance with Senate rules.(Source: Metro)